A few days ago, we found out that Apple Corps and EMI would finally release the Beatles' catalog in a digital format. It's not that we couldn't have just purchased CDs and ripped them—that's what everyone's been doing for years now—it's just that it felt like progress. In reality, it was just the near-random actions of someone who has no idea what's going on, at all. From the Guardian via Ars, Paul McCartney's view on selling the Beatles' music online:

I met [EMI's chief executive] on a plane once. I said: "What is the problem? I want to do it, we all want to do it." And he explained that in the deal that we want, they feel exposed. If [digitised Beatles music] gets out, if one employee decides to take it home and wap it on to the internet, we would have the right to say, "Now you recompense us for that. And they're scared of that."

Just to be clear, Paul McCartney says he wants to sell music online, but he—and his record company—are worried that someone could conceivably download it, upload it back to the internet, and open the floodgates to piracy. As opposed to just uploading the higher-quality digital files you're selling to people on Apple-shaped USB drives right now, or on CDs, more than a decade ago. McCartney expects an agreement by which he would be compensated if people share his music, as if it would be somehow correlated with the release of Beatles' tracks online, which EMI—no stranger to releasing music online—is scared of because it's insane.

Poor Paul! Someone should tell him, you know, about all the wapping. [Ars Technica]

UPDATE: From anonymized (not anonymous) source who researched similar subjects in the past, a possible explanation:

It's not the music for sale they're worried about but the raw remasters (this is why McCartney specifically refers to an employee potentially uploading the music). I don't know how much you've read about the making of [Beatles Rock Band] but they went to incredible lengths to protect the masters. It was only towards the end of the project that Harmonix received the (heavily encrypted) music they needed; before then, Apple Corps had been sending them "dirtied-up" copies of the music just in case it was intercepted halfway.

The real threat from McCartney and the other Beatles (and er, spouses of Beatles) is that if, somewhere in the process of turning their music into iTunes-friendly files, the MASTERS get leaked... then they will sue the pants off of EMI. And EMI allegedly said they are in such a precarious financial position that they do not want to take the risk of getting hit by a lawsuit that could take the company down.

An alternate theory, which still doesn't quite work. If masters leaked to the internet, presumably they'd be encoded in something like FLAC at best, which would be indistinguishable from the files the Beatles are OK with selling on USB drives right now. Or if this refers to the recording's component parts, like the ones used to create Rock Band, still: This seems avoidable. And in either strain of paranoia: Paul McCartney doesn't understand the internet. (And possibly other things, too!)

This video should illustrate what the gameplay is like. It's made by a company familiar with music games, but the reason we're interested is with the digital music part. How well it'll work is up to the developers, but it's something that we want to see more of.

In fact, games like this could help sell music in weird ways if users are posting that certain songs get them certain levels that are really great. A crap song could make for a really good level. At the very least, you'll be able to explore your music library in a weird way. [Joystiq]

FLAC quality is 44.1Khz 24 bit, and MP3 is 320 Kbps. Only 30,000 will be made, and it goes on sale November 8 for $280 (pre-orders are now live). The stick is $60 more than the CD set, but die-hard fans get "all of the re-mastered CDs' visual elements, including 13 mini-documentary films about the studio albums, replicated original UK album art, rare photos and expanded liner notes." [TheBeatles.com]

Lest you judge too quickly, let's take a look at the Geek Squad's latest service in their own words:

CD conversion requires care and expertise. We'll rip your CD collection into MP3, AAC, WAV, WMA, WMA-Lossless, or OGG formats, and return it to you (along with your CDs) on DVDs

Translation: We'll take whatever is on your disc, and put it on another disc.

We pull quality, accurate metadata from multiple sources such as AMG and GD3 and rip your CDs with the finest error correction software. We also hand-groom your digital music collection making searching and organizing your collection a breeze and ready to play as soon as you receive it.

Translation: We have iTunes.

Wondering where we are with your conversion? Simply login on our website and view the status of your order at any time.

Translation: This is going to take a while.

Have a few CDs with peanut butter and jelly on them?

Translation: You are clearly an idiot.

Need an iPod, hard drive, or music server with your CD Ripping? Add it to your cart and we'll transfer (load) your entire collection to the selected hardware FREE of charge.

Translation: And that we know you're an idiot, we would like to steal from you.

I'm sure there's a market for this—old folks? the chronically lazy? someone's been paying for this shit for years—but really, you're paying a dollar for someone to click on a few buttons, and pass it off as something that you can't do yourself. Or hey, maybe I'm being unfair. Let me know! Just email me your thoughts, and I'll post them as comments for, let's say $0.50 a word? Great. [Consumerist]

"I just want our product to sound better," Iovine said. "The record business committed many, many mistakes in the last 10 years, and I'm right in there. One of them was letting its product get degraded. It's one thing to let it get stolen, it's another to allow it to be degraded because then you really don't have a chance...video games and TV quality are getting better and the quality of our work is getting lower. If that happens, then music will become disposable. That's something we can fix."

Their goal, it seems, is to educate the iPod-owning masses about what music should sound like so that we may rise up and demand this sort of quality in the future. Details on the product line have not been released, but we do know that they will feature a premium price tag—a major barrier for adoption beyond the hardcore audiophile. While I agree that the public puts up with sub-standard sound quality in many cases, the best way to make a technology mainstream is to make it affordable. [CNET via BusinessWeek]

In his interview on the fantastic podcast The Sound of Young America, Kot states that the music industry was actually one of the primary causes of piracy. The explosion of boy bands and bubblegum pop in the late 1990s was due to the labels' insistence on pouring a huge amount of money into just a few dumbed-down, impersonal, lowest-common-denominator acts, which meant in turn that commercial radio was almost completely garbage. There was little room for genuine weirdo geniuses like, say, Prince or David Bowie, and devoid of good music, the market was bound to react—hence Napster.

Kot goes through the standard points all dedicated pirates know—artists have never made money on record sales, the mp3 revolution encouraged the indie movement and a huge variety of new and exciting acts, the RIAA's insistence on trying to sue piracy out of existence led to the public having absolutely zero guilt about pirating music. But what's nice is Kot's recognition that iTunes, the much-applauded champion of legal music downloads, is still far inferior to pirate options.

I'll toss this out there: I think the dear departed OiNK, an invite-only torrent site that was forcefully shut down in late 2007, was the greatest music distribution service ever created. It was leagues ahead of iTunes: Faster downloads, better mandated sound quality, an incredibly vast library, vibrant forums full of knowledgeable music dorks, and, of course, totally without DRM. Even now that iTunes has abandoned DRM, it can't hold a candle to a service that hasn't even been operational in nearly two years. Record labels seem to have pinned their hopes to iTunes, but Kot stresses that iTunes is far from perfect, and the labels should be busting ass trying to come up with a viable business model that attracts, not polices, customers, and can at least hold pace with the illegal options.

Cue the "screw the RIAA" comments. [The Sound of Young America]

Kramer's device, the IXI, was flash-based, even though flash memory in 1979 only could have held about three minutes of audio, and featured a screen, four-way controls, and was about the size of a cigarette pack. Even weirder, he envisioned the creation and sale of digital music and foresaw all the good and bad that would come from this: No overhead, no inventory, but a great push for independent artists, with the risk of piracy looming large.

He predicted DRM, though he didn't go into many specifics, and in his one concession to the time, guessed that music would be bought on coin-operated machines placed in high-traffic areas. It's creepy, really. Last year, Apple even brought him in to testify on their behalf—they weren't at risk of being sued themselves, since his patent had expired. Pretty amazing, considering there wasn't even internet at the time (he used telephone lines instead). Check out our article on the case in which Apple used his testimony for more info. [picture from CNET]

Gizmodo '79 is a week-long celebration of gadgets and geekdom 30 years ago, as the analog age gave way to the digital, and most of our favorite toys were just being born.

The new plan, which goes live tonight, undercuts just about anything that doesn't involve BitTorrent. Five bucks a month nets you streaming access to Napster's 7-million-deep music library as well as five DRM-free MP3s. Five MP3s a month isn't much—that's about four or five typical albums a year. But even disregarding the radio service—which is strictly an on-demand streaming service, not some kind of DRM-laden rental service for portables like Napster To Go— you're getting these tracks at the going rate of $1 a song. Update: You can also pay to download as much you want, in addition to streaming and the five free MP3s.

So, if you have any use for a browser-tethered streaming service and were going to buy digital music anyway, Best Buy's new Napster is a solid "may as well" option. Full press release below (service available from tonight):

Napster Offers MP3s With its Popular On-Demand Streaming Service for One Low Monthly Price

LOS ANGELES – MAY 19, 2009 – Napster, the pioneer of digital music, today unveiled its latest music offering combining the freedom of MP3s with the discovery benefits of a high-quality streaming music service – all for one low price. For as little as $5 per month, Napster users get five unrestricted MP3 downloads, and unlimited access to Napster's award-winning on-demand music streaming service.

Music fans now have the best of both worlds: MP3s to keep forever, play, transfer and burn as much as they like, as well as unlimited music listening from Napster's catalog of more than seven million tracks. "There's no need to settle for 30-second clips to decide if you want to buy a song," said Chris Gorog, CEO of Napster. "For five bucks now you can have access to our entire music catalog and get five MP3s to add to your permanent collection."

Napster users can now:
• Get five MP3s each month to download, with their choice of songs from the Napster MP3 library that covers all types of music from all the major labels and includes the largest catalog of independent artists available.
• Listen to any track, as often as they like, in CD quality from Napster's catalog of more than seven million songs.
• Choose from more than 60 commercial-free radio stations and more than 1,400 expertly programmed playlists.
• Discover new music and artists through personalized recommendation tools.
• Enjoy the top hits from more than 50 years of Billboard charts. Want to know what was popular when you graduated high school? Now you can.
• Play MP3s on any MP3 player, including iPod®, iPhone® and music-enabled MP3 mobile phones.

"A decade ago, Napster revolutionized the way people discovered and enjoyed music," said Julie Owen, senior vice president of entertainment for Best Buy. "The brand that started it all is shaking things up again with this new service that provides music lovers continued access to the entertainment experience they've come to expect of Napster and Best Buy."

The new Napster offering is now available for U.S. residents at www.napster.com.

For full resolution, click here.

It wasn't until the beginning of the 20th century that mass-produced recordings were available to the average person—the concept of buying music is amazingly new. (Or to some, ooooooold.) Just a century ago, the first records began to do for music what the Gutenberg press did for words. Before them, music was handed crudely from person to person; after, it could reach millions, untouched and unspoiled.

If we couldn't record music, the Beatles would have never left Liverpool. By the same token the Jonas Brothers would have never left Georgia or Disney World or the Old Testament or wherever the hell they came from. Talk about progress! There may be no accounting for taste, but you can thank these reproducible formats for the very existence of the notion of pop music.

Listening Test: It's music tech week at Gizmodo.

The MV-CM001U can store MP3 and WMA files in 32/64/128/192/320kbps sizes, it features a 1.5W speaker and it has a surprisingly attractive wooden design. The device is only compatible with Windows XP or Vista, which is unfortunate because most of the people who would need it are probably still running Windows 98 or lower. [Novac via Crunchgear via Boing Boing Gadgets]

Listening Test: It's music tech week at Gizmodo.

So the question is: how much have you spent on digital music all-time?

Amazon now has prices ranging from a low of $0.79 to a high of $1.29, the same as iTunes, and its highest priced tracks now make up ten of its top 100 list. Walmart, for its part, is a little cheaper, from a low of $0.64 to a high of $1.24. It looks like the music labels have finally gotten their way in this battle. [Electronista]

Though it may have been naive, the general expectation was that the new $1.29 price point, which would cover new releases and perpetually popular songs, would be offset by $0.69 deals on, shall we say, less desirable music. For every $1.29 suburb-conquering chart topper by Ne-Yo, we had assumed there would be a $0.69 track from, oh, I don't know, Chumbawamba or something. Not so! In fact, I haven't yet found anything at the lower price point, and I have dredged the darkest depths. Yanni? $0.99. LFO? $0.99. The Bee Gees? $0.99. Vanilla Ice? $0.99 Men Without Hats songs that aren't The Safety Dance? $0.99. Stryper, that Christian hair metal band? $0.99.

I'm probably looking in the wrong place here, but wherever these cheaper tracks are, they're not anywhere where people are likely to download them. In other words, tiered pricing is really just selective price gouging. Oh well!

UPDATE: I FOUND ONE! But it's possible the worst thing to ever pass through a human ear hole: a Limp Bizkit/Bubba Sparx collaboration, remixed by Timbaland. My point stands. —Thanks, Caden!

UPDATE 2: Apple is now promoting some collections of $0.69 songs in the iTunes store: Rock, and Classic R&B. So, they exist.

Verizon is expanding their Media Store, which currently contains ringtones and games, mostly, with over five million MP3s, arranged in an iTunes-esque tiered price model, with a $0.99 base price and $1.29 and $0.69 rates for brand-new and classic tracks, respectively. Verizon's pitch is that this new service will give customers "choices and flexibility as they build their mobile music libraries." This isn't sinister or misleading, just based on a false assumption: that people want such a thing as a "mobile music library."

Most phones—Verizon's included—support MP3 playback, meaning that songs from iTunes Plus, Amazon, eMusic, etc. can be played without a problem. Transferring music from a PC is usually trivial, so peoples' "mobile music libraries" are just made up of their regular libraries. By offering MP3 downloads and a desktop client, Verizon is competing directly with the biggest players in the digital music industry, and while their store doesn't look particularly bad (it's actually got quite a nice interface), I don't see what it offers to lure users away from the proven download services they're already signed up for. [Channel Web]

Auto-tune really only entered public consciousness with the release of that one Cher song that's somehow still playing in malls more than a decade later. And lately, some rappers, most notably T-Pain and most distressingly Kanye West, have taken up the robotic vocal torch. Even stark minimalist Bon Iver used the software, made by Antares Audio Technologies, on his most recent EP. But Time's recent article explains that auto-tune is used on just about every major-label pop album these days, from Britney Spears to Faith Hill. It's now assumed that auto-tuning will be applied to almost any recording that doesn't specifically refuse it.

Some, including legendary producer Rick Rubin and possible love of my life Neko Case, aren't fans of the near-required use of auto-tuning. Rubin notes that many classic recordings were only achieved after repeated attempts, and that emotion and passion can be lost with the use of the software. Case, in typical brash honesty, declared, "That shit sounds like shit!" regarding auto-tuned singers, and compared it to the artificiality of diet soda.

We often forget that it's the imperfection of vocals that can make them the most powerful. There's nothing wrong with glossy bubblegum like T-Pain, but to use auto-tuning indiscriminately can absolutely kill honest emotion.

On the other hand, it's hard not to like T-Pain; his unabashed lack of singing ability doesn't make him a lesser pop artist, and his pledge to create an iPhone app that would allow anybody to auto-tune themselves into a crooning robot actually sounds like a great idea. Britney, you can fix your warble all you want, but leave the serious music alone, okay? [Time]

Sadly, the key for this feat is a new format called MXP4, which may limit its adoption in the music industry. MXP4 has several mixes of the same song built in, recorded by the artist. When the player detects a mood variation, the music changes accordingly to fit it. According to the company, this makes the song some kind of living creature, with endless variations to match your mind.

I would have been happy with the same technology applied to current players, mixing existing songs automatically as the mood changes—although often I use music to change mood, rather than match it. What about you? Do you think this automatic DJ playing is useful? [Musinaut]

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.